Transcript of Ada Harlen and Mary Doubek interviews

Rosetta: Well, we’re getting ready to go. A few little brief comments on our guests this
morning. Mrs. Mary Doubek is married and has seven children and she is a school
teacher and Mrs. Ada Harlen is married and she has three children and she is an attorney.
So I think we’ll just go right into our little Equal Rights Amendment conversation and the
affirmative usually presents their side first, I understand, so Ada, welcome to Scooter,
and let’s go.
Ada: Thank you, Rosetta, and good morning. The Equal Rights Amendment has indeed
been passed by the Congress of the United States. By the ratification of this 27th
Amendment to the federal constitution, the ERA will remove sex as a factor in
determining the legal rights of both men and women. In certain areas such as social
security, men are discriminated against. The ERA is most certainly not an Equal Rights
Amendment for women only. Contrary to the dire warning of our opponents, the ERA
will not take away any of the rights supposedly enjoyed by women now. It will merely
equalize them with the rights now enjoyed by men. A law, state or federal, that confers a
benefit, privilege or obligation to one’s sex will be extended to include the other sex, and
the law that restricts or denies opportunities will be rendered unconstitutional. ERA
looks toward a legal system in which each person will be judged on individual merit and
not on the basis of an unalterable trait of birth that has no necessary relationship to need
or ability. It will primarily affect government action. It would not apply to social
customs or personal relationships. For example, the questions of who will wash the
dishes, open the door or bring home the paycheck are outside the jurisdiction of the ERA.
With Montana’s new constitution, why is there a need for ERA ratification? The Equal
Rights Amendment will mean that federal, as well as state government benefit programs,
which currently discriminate on the basis of sex, will be available to men and women
alike. Manpower training programs will be required to accept young women on an equal
basis with young men, and social security will be required to provide the relatives of
working women with the same benefits it now provides the families of working men. In
the military, accepting women on an equal basis with men will open more vocational and
educational opportunities which are now denied to many women. While I
wholeheartedly support the principles of the Equal Rights Amendment, I am not now and
never have been an advocate of women’s lib. These are two entirely different concepts.
To be entitled to a right simply because of your sex or to be deprived of a right because
of your sex is not my idea of equality, either under God’s law or man’s. The ERA will
permit each woman a meaningful choice of how to live her own life. Those who choose
to be housewives will not be deprived in any way. But the ERA will provide real
equality under the law for those women who have to work or who seek careers in
combination with their role as housewives or as alternatives to that role. The dollar
2
value of the homemaker’s contribution is also recognized by economists, the Internal
Revenue Service and the Courts. You may ask, “Why not change specific laws instead?”
Without the impetus of the Equal Rights Amendment, changing laws would be too
haphazard, piecemeal and slow. Specific legislation can deal only with specific
problems, and without adequate enforcement powers and funding can be meaningless. A
Constitutional amendment is the only realistic way to ensure equality before the law.
This, then, is the proposed 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Section 1: Equality
of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
state on account of sex. Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce by
appropriate legislation the provisions of this Article. Section 3: This amendment shall
take affect two years after the date of ratification. Our senior Senator from Montana,
Mike Mansfield, said it all when he commented on his vote on this amendment, and I
quote, “Discrimination against women has represented an indelible scar on the economic
and social fabric of our national life. To help eradicate that scar requires constitutional
change. This is why I voted for the Equal Rights Amendment. I simply feel it is wrong
that the full promise of America has been denied some citizens because of sex. The
Equal Rights Amendment is an essential ingredient in the efforts being waged to correct
this inequity.” Thank you.
Rosetta: All right. Now, I will again qualify. Each woman presenting her side of the
Equal Rights Amendment has seven minutes or less, so there is a time that we have
placed on Ada and Mary this morning. Mary Doubek will present the opposing side to
the Equal Rights Amendment.
Mary: Thank you. Good morning. We opponents are for equal pay for equal work. We
are against the Equal Rights Amendment because it deprives a woman of her rights. We
are committed to women’s rights and we will get and can get all the rights we need
through the laws which we already have and any further laws which we may choose
through our own state legislators. This should really be called the “Equal Obligations
Amendment” or the “Equal Responsibility Amendment” because it won’t give women
anything in the field of employment, but it will take away many of our precious rights.
For example, the laws in all the states used to make it the obligation of the husband to
support his wife and family. This is based on the obvious fact that it is the women who
have the babies and the men do not and therefore, it should be the men who provide the
financial support. ERA would invalidate these laws because no longer can we have any
legislation which imposes an obligation on one sex which it does not impose on the other.
Removing these state laws will take away from the wife her legal right to be a full-time
wife and mother supported by her husband. Did you notice I said, “the laws in all the
states used to protect women’s right of support”? No longer, because now in
Pennsylvania and California, women there have lost their right to be supported because,
as the judge said, since the state has ERA there, such a discriminatory practice of making
the man responsible for support would clearly violate the ERA of their state Constitution.
Case dismissed. You see, we do have choice right now, but if ERA would pass, we
would lose that choice. The Equal Rights Amendment used to have the Hayden
modification, named after Senator Hayden, attached to it, which stated, “The provisions
of this Article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits or exemptions
3
conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.” Now that little sentence protected my
rights, but the women libber’s successfully adjutated until the Hayden modification was
removed from the Equal Rights Amendment. It is not in the amendment anymore, which
surely reveals the motivation of the proponents of ERA. They purposely eliminated the
rights, benefits and exemptions conferred by law upon women. They called it a
“crippling clause.” Who did it cripple? Not me, not you. You see, women are already
protected by laws. The 5th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, equal protection clause, the
Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Act of 1972, which forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment
including hiring, pay and promotions. And further, the Education Act of 1972, which
does not allow discriminations, either. If any woman is discriminated against in
employment, she can file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
and it will pay the cost of processing the claim and filing suit for back pay. Another right
women will loose will be their right to be exempted from the draft if we should have it
again. And with the volunteer’s army proving itself not very successful, in the event of
an emergency, we’d be back to the draft again. You know, it is still the law for young
men to register for the draft at 18, with ERA women would have to register at 18, also.
The Official United States House Judiciary Committee Report to Congress clearly states
not only would women, including mothers, be subject to the draft, but the military would
be compelled to place them in combat units along side of men. Another dangerous effect
of ERA would be the loss of all protective labor legislation placed on the books for
women so far. Women in industry need these laws. You see, women are just as smart as
men, but they can’t compete evenly in manual labor because most of them are not as
strong as men, and so they need those protective labor laws. Another bad feature of ERA
would be Section 2, which reads, “The Congress shall have the powers to enforce by
appropriate legislation the provisions of this Article.” This is a tremendous grab for
power at the federal level. We elect these Senators and Representatives to our state
legislatures and then deprive them of their powers to legislate for us. Originally, Section
2 read, “Congress and the various state legislature shall have power to enforce this
Article by appropriate legislation.” The words “and the various states” left out before
passage by Congress. They are now deleted. You see, it was the women libber’s who
wanted many of these crippling clauses eliminated and we have our own philosophy right
here in Montana, “Let our legislators make laws to serve our wants and needs.” Many
states emotionally ratified the ERA without study of its effects. The Nebraskan
legislature was the second state to ratify and passed it unanimously without any hearings
or debates. However, the next year, after hearings, debate and study, it rescinded.
Twenty states now have rejected ERA, 10 states are presently introducing motions to
rescind in their legislatures, and of course, Nebraska has already rescinded. A state
legislature, you see, can repeal any act it passes, the power to rescind exists only up until
the time as the necessary three-fourths of the state have ratified. It’s perfectly
constitutional. Just who wants ERA? The New York Times describes the radical
objectives of the, let’s see, the New York Times article, that’s September 1972, frankly
described the ultimate objectives of the women liberation movement in these words, to
give women full participation in society they say it is necessary to overthrow the
structures on which the system is based. The first things to go would be the political
institutions that perpetuate the system, such as institutional marriage which they assert
4
enslaves women for economic reasons. Probably the most important and the most
emotional issue that unites the reformers with the radicals is the proposed repeal of all
abortion laws. However, there is another type of woman supporting the Equal Rights
Amendment from the most sincere motives, and that’s the business and professional
women who have been discriminated against. But the laws are on the books. All we
need is to reinforce them, or rather to see that they are enforced. The Equal Rights
Amendment is not self-enforcing. If the Hayden modification had remained in it, we
would have supported it, but please, don’t take away the rights of the rest of the women.
Please write your legislators. Rosetta?
Rosetta: Okay, Mary.
Mary: Thank you.
Rosetta: Now, they have presented their sides, Ada Harlen and Mary Doubek, and I have
questions. Some of these questions are repetitious. Amazingly enough not too many
came in that were the same. I have tried to, I have kept all my mail, I want… I don’t
know why, I never get uptight like this, but I’m a little nervous about this, it seems so
formal and I don’t want it to be because “Scooter” isn’t formal, but I have kept all my
mail on this, every piece of mail. And we are going to try and be as fair and as even
Steven right down the line. And Mary and Ada and I talked a little bit before we went on
and they said they would try and limit, they want to go through as many questions as
possible, they’ll try to limit their answers and keep them as brief, because with questions
you really get the pulse of the people. We’re going to be back with the written in
questions they choose, but they will both have an opportunity to respond to the question,
and then we’ll alternate them on who will answer the next question. The first question:
How will the ERA dignify the housewife? Ada?
Ada: I think many housewives are dignified right now, for that matter, but it will
recognize for one thing the fact that women, even though they are not paid by anyone for
performing housework, those, that compensation will be recognized not only by the
Internal Revenue Service, for instance, the fact that at this time if you own joint property,
when you die, the ER, or excuse me, the Internal Revenue Service does not recognize that
a housewife actually contributed to earning that money because they say she didn’t bring
home a paycheck. Everyone knows that the services a housewife performs is certainly
worth a considerable amount of money. That has been proven in many lawsuits by the
fact that you can sue for the services of your wife and recover a considerable amount of
money and we are entitled to be recognized for that, I believe.
Rosetta: Mary, the same question, how will the ERA dignify the housewife?
Mary: Well, I feel as though the housewives in the United States have enjoyed just a
perfect dignity over the years and we are happy to call ourselves housewives and
mothers. As far as the, and I don’t think it will give a thing to us. We certainly, I think
we are, actually we are suffering to be taken down from the pedestal we’ve enjoyed over
the years and to be placed on an equal with men because the men in our society have
5
placed us above equality. But, as far as the legal rights, now of course Mrs. Harlen is an
attorney, but I understand that although we aren’t compensated in terms of dollars and
cents and we do have little stars in our crown, we also do share in the estate. After the
husband dies why we get a portion of the estate or percentage of the estate, and so we
help him amass what our estate will be worth eventually. But as far as the money that we
would get, you know that the Internal Revenue recognizes that we are worth, I can’t take
that money down and buy Christmas presents for my children.
Rosetta: Mary, will ERA affect social issues?
Mary: Well, ERA will really affect us all the way around. They say that it’s just going to
be legal, but when you think of military, criminal law, and all of the, it’s going to make
us on an equal basis with men, which means it’s going to affect our lives, certainly, in all
phases, I would say.
Rosetta: Ada, will ERA affect social issues?
Ada: No. I can’t see where it will at all. Common sense tells us that it will not affect the
social relationship between the sexes in any manner.
Rosetta: Ada, do you really feel women will loose their rights and privileges under
ERA?
Ada: Everyone keeps talking about we’re going to have our rights taken away from us.
I haven’t been able to find anybody to pin me down as to what those rights are that they
are going to take away from me with ERA. I think it will give me an equal chance, or all
men and women, an equal chance to be entitled to the rights which we should be entitled
to.
Rosetta: Mary?
Mary: Well, I feel we have equal rights right now. I am free to go out and get a job, and
I do teach. I am free to stay home. But you see, in the event of the Equal Rights
Amendment, women would no longer enjoy the right to be exempted from the draft and
they say well the volunteer army is now in effect, but as I pointed out in my presentation
if there were a national emergency they would have to resurrect the draft and then women
would have to be drafted. Also, we give up our rights to our state legislators. We elect
them and then we wouldn’t allow them to legislate for us. Do you realize that all of our
laws, our criminal laws, domestic laws and so on, would be then in the hands of the
federal government and I think we are all happy with our philosophy here in Montana.
The federal government would take over in all of our domestic laws and so on. Now if
we have a gripe we can go to our legislators and they will enact legislation to help us, and
that’s what we must do. But in ERA, may I just say one thing, because in Pennsylvania
and Colorado, women have lost their right to be supported there. In the case of Colorado
vs. Elliott, the woman tried to press charges against her husband because he wasn’t
supporting her, and so the judge said, well we have ERA in our state now and it’s too
6
bad, but this would be clearly discriminatory to the man to expect that he would support
you and so we can’t press charges. Case dismissed.
Rosetta: Mary, what will ERA do for the women who are not physically able to do the
equal work for equal pay on the same job as men?
Mary: This is really, this is really rough on women because it does nullify all protective
labor legislation that’s in effect right now. Women would be then on a par with men.
We had a letter about a woman in Great Falls in industry, she’s getting on in years, and
she was told at the first of the month she was going to receive equal pay for her work,
along equal with men, and the men have to do some heavy carrying, so she will have to
do the same kinds of heavy carrying. She said she can’t do it, she fears she will lose her
job, and in all probability she will because she won’t be able to put out the same work.
Rosetta: Ada, your feelings on this?
Ada: The employment situation as it is right now with physical labor, I’m sure that if
you do the same amount of labor as a man does you will be equally paid. Mary talks
about not affecting our employment. Take the education situation where Mary being a
teacher I would think would be concerned about this, because elementary teachers, about
68 percent are women, yet you get down to principals where, of elementary schools,
about 15 percent are women and in high schools, four percent. I believe that women are
adequately able to do the same type of work in the educational system that men are and
yet we are terrifically discriminated against in that field.
Mary: May I?
Rosetta: I think we’ll have one point to each question.
Mary: Education. She brought up education and I am a teacher and I’d like to point out.
Rosetta: If you can briefly as quickly as possible.
Mary: I just want to say that, who is discriminating against the women? I have a table
here that clearly shows that there is no discrimination in education. But it’s the statistics.
Who is applying for the jobs? Are the women in fact applying for roles of principals or
teachers because if they apply and they have the qualifications, you see it would be
against the Equal Employment Opportunity Act if they were denied a position if they had
the same ability.
Rosetta: Ada, does the ERA extend into affairs of the home?
Ada: No. I think we’ve adequately pointed that out. The only manner in which this may
extend into the home, Rosetta, I feel would be in the, through the courts perhaps with
children’s support and perhaps even alimony. However, this is at this time decided
generally on the issues at hand and each case, of course, is different and the judge has the
7
discretion of determining who should support the children. Simply because you are a
woman, I don’t feel that should give you a right to be entitled to have someone support
you. At this time in Montana the support of the children is the duty of both the man and
the woman and whoever is capable of supporting those children. Certainly if a woman is
earning $700 a month and a man is earning $700 a month, why should the full support of
the children be upon that man? I don’t think that that’s fair by any stretch of the
imagination.
Rosetta: Mary?
Mary: Yes, well I definitely think the Equal Rights Amendment will affect the home.
First, as I’ve pointed out before, the women would loose their support; and secondly,
Professor Paul Freund of the Harvard Law School, and he is a constitutional law expert,
points out the fact that if the Equal Rights Amendment were to be passed, and there were
day care centers in the area, the woman would have to put her pre-school children in the
day care centers so that she could go out and obtain a fifty percent of the support of the
home. She wouldn’t have the excuse of having pre-school children to take care of. And
this is a, he’s a constitutional lawyer. He’s the man that they would go to to find out how
the ERA would work. And so all of these laws, domestic laws, would have to be
changed. Of course, if the woman is home and she has to go to work, you can see she’s
going to have a hard time. Usually they do have the man support the wife because she’s
the one who bears the children, he begets them, she bears them, so he should pay for her
financial support.
Rosetta: Since we already have state ERA, why do we need to ratify the national ERA,
Mary?
Mary: Well I would like to point out that we in Montana are quite fortunate because our
Equal Rights Amendment differs from the national Equal Rights Amendment. In our
amendment we have the equal protection clause and we can take it to mean the language
of the 14th Amendment which will differentiate, which uses, which distinguishes
differences between men and women and all differences aren’t necessarily
discrimination, so we really do have a lot more. If you would read that section in the
Constitution and compare it to the national Equal Rights Amendment, you’d find that we
are really better enforced.
Rosetta: Ada, since we already have ERA, state ERA, why do we need to ratify the
national ERA?
Ada: Because without the national ERA, Rosetta, while under Montana’s constitution we
will be entitled to benefits from this constitution, which will help to equalize our rights
for women, that will not take care of any federal legislation and without ratifying this
amendment we won’t be able to equalize these social security laws or any of the other
federal benefits which would help us.
Rosetta: Ada, can a state rescind it’s ratification of ERA?
8
Ada: Yes, a state may rescind its ratification. However, Mary mentioned earlier that
Nebraska had now rescinded. But I might point out that while Nebraska did vote to
rescind its earlier ratification of ERA, it is still being counted as one of the 30 states
having ratified. The legality of this attempt to rescind will have to be resolved by
Congress when it decides what states have ratified the Amendment. If Congress follows
history and precedent it must hold that such a de-ratification attempt is null and void.
Rosetta: We’re going to have to hurry. We have lots of questions and time is growing
late. Mary, can a state rescind its ratification?
Mary: Yes, it certainly can. A state legislature can repeal any act it passes. There’s
nothing in the United States Constitution, any state constitution, any federal or state laws,
or any decision of the United States Supreme Court which denies this right to a state
legislature. As a matter of fact, Professor Charles Black, law professor of juris prudence,
at Yale University Law School, has said that he is a strong proponent of the Equal Rights
Amendment, but he said, it’s clearly once a state goes for it, it can change its mind either
way before the amendment is officially declared to be ratified. The ones who count, who
do not want to count Nebraska as a rescinding, are the proponents.
Rosetta: Mary, since there is no draft, how could women be drafted?
Mary: Well there is no draft, but we do have a volunteer army and it is proving that it is
unsuccessful. They are below quota, they are lowering their standards, and so in the
event of a national emergency they would have to get people in it and so they would have
to resurrect the draft. We see headlines about the draft being brought again to the fore all
the time and then of course in the event of a draft women would be drafted and this is
acknowledged in the Yale Law Journal.
Rosetta: Ada?
Ada: The draft is now a dead issue, and Congress at this time already does have the
power to draft women. In fact, at the end of WWII, this was almost brought to a
foregone conclusion by the drafting of women. One thing that the military would have to
end would be the practice of demanding higher qualification for women than for men. In
other words, did you know that at this time a woman must be a high school graduate in
order to volunteer; a man does not? There are benefits to be gained by entering the
military and the woman should be entitled to be able to join up and enjoy the same
benefits that men do.
Rosetta: If women were to sue under, and you’re an attorney, if women were to sue
under existing laws to clear up inequities, wouldn’t their legal brief have more substance
if the law of the land, the Constitution, guaranteed equality, and, there’s a, it’s a two-fold
question, maybe this other part will clear it up. Wouldn’t the social fabric of such
inequities be easier to re-weave into more pleasant patterns if the ERA were passed?
9
Ada: That question brings me a little on the confused side. If you’re submitting a brief
or suing in court, I don’t really feel that your sex should affect the contents of your brief,
it shouldn’t even affect your influence on the court itself. What is in it should be the
meat on which the court would base its decision, not who you are or what your sex is. It
should be concerned with the issue, not the person which is, not the sex of the person,
which is exactly the issue that the ERA is arguing about.
Rosetta: Mary?
Mary: Yes, I’ll just make this very quick. Women in Montana are allowed to sue in their
own name and in fact do so, so I don’t think there’s any advantage there.
Rosetta: Now let’s keep this one brief, in view of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Act of March ‘73, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Higher
Education Act of 1973, what further purpose does Equal Rights Amendment serve,
Mary?
Mary: Well, as Martha Griffith said, in the Congress, Equal Rights, the Equal Rights
Amendment will do nothing for women in the field of employment. She maintains it’s
strictly psychological uplift. I feel it will not only do nothing, it will take away our
rights.
Rosetta: Ada.
Ada: I just might comment briefly on this “equal opportunities.” Everyone says if you’re
not getting paid equally, you can simply file a claim with the equal opportunities. The
CIO/AFL representative has informed us that there is such a backlog with the equal
opportunities commission we might all be dead and buried by the time your claim might
be heard. Their claims are running over 2,000 claims on the books at this time which
have not even been considered yet.
Rosetta: Mary, I have heard that the John Birch Society has financed the STOP ERA
Campaign. Is this true?
Mary: No, this is just a smear by association. I haven’t spoken one place yet, almost, I
can think of just one, where this isn’t mentioned. I am not a member and Phyllis
Schlafly, noted author, lecturer and writer, is not a member of the John Birch Society.
They have been cleared by Congress by a representative who was, John Ruscello, was
was concerned, and he just merely pointed out that they were just a patriotic bunch. But
this is just a real smear. A lawyer, an old lawyer told a young lawyer, if you have any
trouble, if you have the law, if you’re short on law, beg your pardon, if you’re short on
law, argue the facts, if you’re short of facts, argue the law and if you’re short on both,
smear the opposition, and I’ve think that’s simply the tactic of this.
Rosetta: Ada, do you have comments on that?
10
Ada: Only that extremists of the left and right are definitely known to be sponsors, or
opponents of the ERA and those in my opinion include not only the John Birch Society,
but the Communist party and the American party as well.
Rosetta: Who supports the ERA? Ada?
Ada: It’s my question.
Rosetta: Now there are lists of them could we generalize?
Ada: The ERA is supported by various church organizations, labor organizations,
women’s organizations and certainly other organizations. Also, to get down to basics in
Montana, the support is actually coming from a lot of little individuals. The women,
housewives in town, have been out raising money with garage sales, with bake sales, with
belonging to the organization and paying a dollar’s dues, and various other ways in which
they have raised money. As I’ve said, I won’t list all of the organizations.
Rosetta: No. And Mary I’ll ask you not to list organizations but generalize.
Mary: Yes. We find that many of the organizations that the proponents’ list, have been
just simply taken at executive level. In other words, we know members in many of these
organizations who have never been polled, and in fact many of whom are against the
Equal Rights Amendment and yet their organizations are listed for it. So we feel as
though this is very unfair. Now Redbook last July told the proponents to go out and
“look like housewives” and solicit this vote, you know, for the Equal Rights Amendment.
And we feel as though we are the housewives, we are the ones who would be
discriminated against, and so we are not voting for it.
Rosetta: This I’m not sure has an answer, this question, but it comes from a concerned
high school student, and since it’s the only student who wrote a question, and both men
and women by the way did send in questions. Why did, and I will, if you want to
comment, fine and if not we’ll just go on to the next. Why didn’t Presidents Johnson,
Kennedy and Nixon support ERA? I don’t know if there’s an answer to that. The next
question, how will ERA affect labor laws that protect women, Mary?
Mary: Yes, well, some of those presidents did support the Equal Rights Amendment, but
it was only when it had the Hayden modification attached to it which would protect our
rights, benefits and exemptions. Actually, President Kennedy did not support the Equal
Rights Amendment because he felt as though the 14th Amendment, the equal protection
clause, plus the equal pay act of 1963 would take care of women in all kinds of
discriminatory situations, so he said that the Equal Rights Amendments was not
necessary.
Rosetta: Ada, how will ERA affect labor laws that protect women?
11
Ada: Labor laws were originally intended to protect women from being exploited on the
job and they are now often used to bar women from getting jobs at better pay. The Civil
Rights Act of ‘64 is invalidating these laws all over the United States. Montana has only
one law left requiring seats for female employees. Recently the law that women could
not work more than eight hours a day was ruled out in Montana and this was brought out
in a situation over in Missoula where a bakery would not allow the women to work over
time thus depriving them of making the time and a half for overtime that the men were
allowed to make.
Rosetta: Mary, as a tax payer I’d like to ask if ERA is passed and made law will this do
away with the equal opportunity program as it now exists?
Mary: Well, now which equal opportunity program are you specifying?
Rosetta: They don’t specify, it’s simply equal opportunity program. Well we…
Mary: There’s a, you mean that Equal Employment Opportunity we have?
Rosetta: Yes. I think we have an equal opportunity…
Mary: We have an Equal Employment Opportunity Act, well, you know. Well of
course, that was put in as an enforcement clause, or as an enforcing amendment to the
Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, is that what you’re referring to?
Rosetta: I guess, I don’t know.
Mary: Really they are a little bit ambiguous I think.
Rosetta: Ada, do you want to comment?
Ada: No, I don’t want to comment on that question.
Rosetta: Ada, what groups were influential in lobbying ERA out of Congress and
bringing it to the state level?
Ada: Frankly, I don’t know, Rosetta. I’m not knowledgeable enough to have read that
much to actually know.
Rosetta: Mary?
Mary: Well, the New York Times, 1972, said, and the senators themselves, and the
representatives said, that it was the women libber’s who descended upon them. They
were quite frank and outspoken and many of them were sorry but they admitted they
passed the buck to the state legislatures.
Rosetta: Mary, what federal laws would be affected by the passage of the ERA?
12
Mary: Well, the first one that I immediately can see is the one that would draft women.
Now, we know that Congress has always had the power to draft women, but it has used
that privilege to exempt women. So if the draft were reinstated and the national draft act
or whatever the official name is, why women would be drafted. And also all of the, the
federal government would have legislative powers over all women and the homes and so
on, because, remember that clause about the state legislator, legislature having
jurisdictions over the powers to enforce were taken away from our state legislators. So
our poor state legislators have been elected, they’re standing there, they want to do what
we want them to do, but then we pass the national ERA and deprive them of these
powers.
Rosetta: Ada, what federal laws would be affected by the passage of the ERA?
Ada: Those that discriminate against equality of the sexes at this time. I think in
particular of Social Security benefits at a level that we might become concerned about.
For instance, if a woman retires, she having worked in a job in which she paid social
security all of her life, her benefits are not equal to that of a man. Men cannot retire at as
low an age as women can. I think they’re entitled to this right. Also, if a woman is killed
outright and has social security benefits coming, her husband and her children should be
entitled to the same benefits that the man would be, and that the woman and the man
themselves would be entitled to, whichever might have died first should be entitled to the
same benefits for their remaining children or their remaining spouse.
Rosetta: I think I will further go on with another question that came in, how would ERA
affect social security?
Mary: Men and women will now be the same. Women have been able to retire earlier.
But now men can retire of course at 62 but they take less of a rate. But over a three year
period of time, which will be completed by 1975, it’s equalized, the men and the women
will get the same advantages and they’ll be even Steven.
Rosetta: Mary, if ERA is passed would we have to use the same bathrooms?
Mary: Now, the right to privacy is covered in the Yale Law Journal, and I’ll just have
two things to say. First, it’s impossible to spell out in advance the precise boundaries the
courts will eventually fix in accommodating the ERA and the right of privacy. Now
that’s in the Yale Journal and that’s how the proponents say that it will turn out. I also
want to point out that the Federal Register has put out a sheet that actually says, in the
event of the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, there would be co-facilities in one
of public bathrooms and that even, they have even said right in their federal register that
the partitions would be taken down to make, to facilitate easier cleaning of the restrooms.
And also Professor Paul Freund has said that bathrooms in public facilities and
bathrooms would be co-educational. There is no right to privacy at San Quentin prison
where a woman guard ushers the men in and out of the showers and the men are saying,
where’s my right to privacy.
13
Ada: The right to privacy is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Supreme Court
decision of Griswold vs. Connecticut and would guarantee segregated public bathrooms,
etc. This argument can sometimes be absurd. After all, in homes, small offices and
aboard airplanes, both sexes use the same bathroom with dignity and privacy. I don’t feel
that it will affect us in any way.
Rosetta: Why does labor support the ERA when at first they opposed it, Ada?
Ada: Labor did support, at first did oppose the ERA, then they realized that the labor
laws were becoming so obsolete that they had to be changed to conform to the 14th
Amendment, although, even in conforming it was up to the person making the complaint
to instigate the action in order to bring them under the full realm of the labor protection.
The labor laws are now being advocated by the CIO and AFL and they are one of the
sponsors of the ERA.
Producer: There’s only about a minute and a half left, Rosetta.
Rosetta: Very quickly.
Mary: Yes. The AFL/CIO changed their decision on an executive level. They originally
had said they were so opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment because of its
potentionally dangerous impact on state labor legislation for women workers.
Experience today shows that equality has been used to remove labor law protective for
women rather than to extend it to adapt to men. It was handled on an executive level.
Rosetta: Quickly, Mary, and in one word or less, do you think men are less masculine
today?
Mary: (Laughter) No, I guess they’re better than ever. My husband is.
Ada: Definitely not.
(Laughter.)
Rosetta: I’m sorry, we have questions here.
Mary: That’s a cutie.
Rosetta: Well, we got through this and I compliment both of you for sticking to the rules.
And I’m sorry we didn’t have time for calls. Perhaps another time, during the legislature
we will have a similar session like this so that our legislators can be informed. Now how,
I know both of you want, how they feel. They want these things written, to the
legislators, to the senators, to the members of the House of Representatives. This is the
only way you get action, really, and I know from talking with legislators one letter is
14
worth a whole lot. So where do they obtain lists of the senators and the members of the
house?
Mary: Well, the Secretary of State’s office does have the addresses and names.
Rosetta: The Secretary of State. Ada?
Ada: Yes, and if you would write anyone at Post Office Box 297, we would be happy to
furnish you with these lists. At any time.
Rosetta: Alright. Pro or con, that’s the thing to do if you want action.
Mary: That address wasn’t a con, though, you know, that was their Ratification address.
Rosetta: Well, okay. The Secretary of State, all right, okay. The Secretary of State then.
Tomorrow on Scooter we’re going to have Tom Carlin who talks about ManPower. And
it’s kind of a diversity from what we had this morning. Tom Carlin who’s a counselor
and a program director for the ManPower program here in Helena. Dick Shackelford will
be down to talk about the Christmas concert which is coming up on Saturday night. And,
thank you again for both coming down. And now think about this all you gals and guys
and I do hope the fellas listened this morning because this affects us all. We’ll see you
tomorrow.
(End)

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Interviewed by Rosetta Kamlowsky on December 13, 1973 for the Scooter radio show on KBLL radio. Interviewees debated the Equal Rights Amendment

Creator

Harlen, Ada; Doubek, Mary

Type

Text

Language

eng

Date Original

December 13, 1973

Subject

Interviewing on radio--Montana; Equal rights amendments

Rights Management

Made available for scholarly, research and educational purposes only.

Contributors

Kamlowsky, Rosetta; KBLL Radio

Contributing Institution

Montana Historical Society Research Center

Geographic Coverage

Montana

Digital Collection

Kamlowsky (Rosetta) Radio Interviews

Format

application/pdf

Date Digital

2008

Resource Identifier

Transcript Disc_062

Relation

From the Rosetta Kamlowsky interviews collection

Transcript

Rosetta: Well, we’re getting ready to go. A few little brief comments on our guests this
morning. Mrs. Mary Doubek is married and has seven children and she is a school
teacher and Mrs. Ada Harlen is married and she has three children and she is an attorney.
So I think we’ll just go right into our little Equal Rights Amendment conversation and the
affirmative usually presents their side first, I understand, so Ada, welcome to Scooter,
and let’s go.
Ada: Thank you, Rosetta, and good morning. The Equal Rights Amendment has indeed
been passed by the Congress of the United States. By the ratification of this 27th
Amendment to the federal constitution, the ERA will remove sex as a factor in
determining the legal rights of both men and women. In certain areas such as social
security, men are discriminated against. The ERA is most certainly not an Equal Rights
Amendment for women only. Contrary to the dire warning of our opponents, the ERA
will not take away any of the rights supposedly enjoyed by women now. It will merely
equalize them with the rights now enjoyed by men. A law, state or federal, that confers a
benefit, privilege or obligation to one’s sex will be extended to include the other sex, and
the law that restricts or denies opportunities will be rendered unconstitutional. ERA
looks toward a legal system in which each person will be judged on individual merit and
not on the basis of an unalterable trait of birth that has no necessary relationship to need
or ability. It will primarily affect government action. It would not apply to social
customs or personal relationships. For example, the questions of who will wash the
dishes, open the door or bring home the paycheck are outside the jurisdiction of the ERA.
With Montana’s new constitution, why is there a need for ERA ratification? The Equal
Rights Amendment will mean that federal, as well as state government benefit programs,
which currently discriminate on the basis of sex, will be available to men and women
alike. Manpower training programs will be required to accept young women on an equal
basis with young men, and social security will be required to provide the relatives of
working women with the same benefits it now provides the families of working men. In
the military, accepting women on an equal basis with men will open more vocational and
educational opportunities which are now denied to many women. While I
wholeheartedly support the principles of the Equal Rights Amendment, I am not now and
never have been an advocate of women’s lib. These are two entirely different concepts.
To be entitled to a right simply because of your sex or to be deprived of a right because
of your sex is not my idea of equality, either under God’s law or man’s. The ERA will
permit each woman a meaningful choice of how to live her own life. Those who choose
to be housewives will not be deprived in any way. But the ERA will provide real
equality under the law for those women who have to work or who seek careers in
combination with their role as housewives or as alternatives to that role. The dollar
2
value of the homemaker’s contribution is also recognized by economists, the Internal
Revenue Service and the Courts. You may ask, “Why not change specific laws instead?”
Without the impetus of the Equal Rights Amendment, changing laws would be too
haphazard, piecemeal and slow. Specific legislation can deal only with specific
problems, and without adequate enforcement powers and funding can be meaningless. A
Constitutional amendment is the only realistic way to ensure equality before the law.
This, then, is the proposed 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Section 1: Equality
of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
state on account of sex. Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce by
appropriate legislation the provisions of this Article. Section 3: This amendment shall
take affect two years after the date of ratification. Our senior Senator from Montana,
Mike Mansfield, said it all when he commented on his vote on this amendment, and I
quote, “Discrimination against women has represented an indelible scar on the economic
and social fabric of our national life. To help eradicate that scar requires constitutional
change. This is why I voted for the Equal Rights Amendment. I simply feel it is wrong
that the full promise of America has been denied some citizens because of sex. The
Equal Rights Amendment is an essential ingredient in the efforts being waged to correct
this inequity.” Thank you.
Rosetta: All right. Now, I will again qualify. Each woman presenting her side of the
Equal Rights Amendment has seven minutes or less, so there is a time that we have
placed on Ada and Mary this morning. Mary Doubek will present the opposing side to
the Equal Rights Amendment.
Mary: Thank you. Good morning. We opponents are for equal pay for equal work. We
are against the Equal Rights Amendment because it deprives a woman of her rights. We
are committed to women’s rights and we will get and can get all the rights we need
through the laws which we already have and any further laws which we may choose
through our own state legislators. This should really be called the “Equal Obligations
Amendment” or the “Equal Responsibility Amendment” because it won’t give women
anything in the field of employment, but it will take away many of our precious rights.
For example, the laws in all the states used to make it the obligation of the husband to
support his wife and family. This is based on the obvious fact that it is the women who
have the babies and the men do not and therefore, it should be the men who provide the
financial support. ERA would invalidate these laws because no longer can we have any
legislation which imposes an obligation on one sex which it does not impose on the other.
Removing these state laws will take away from the wife her legal right to be a full-time
wife and mother supported by her husband. Did you notice I said, “the laws in all the
states used to protect women’s right of support”? No longer, because now in
Pennsylvania and California, women there have lost their right to be supported because,
as the judge said, since the state has ERA there, such a discriminatory practice of making
the man responsible for support would clearly violate the ERA of their state Constitution.
Case dismissed. You see, we do have choice right now, but if ERA would pass, we
would lose that choice. The Equal Rights Amendment used to have the Hayden
modification, named after Senator Hayden, attached to it, which stated, “The provisions
of this Article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits or exemptions
3
conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.” Now that little sentence protected my
rights, but the women libber’s successfully adjutated until the Hayden modification was
removed from the Equal Rights Amendment. It is not in the amendment anymore, which
surely reveals the motivation of the proponents of ERA. They purposely eliminated the
rights, benefits and exemptions conferred by law upon women. They called it a
“crippling clause.” Who did it cripple? Not me, not you. You see, women are already
protected by laws. The 5th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, equal protection clause, the
Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Act of 1972, which forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment
including hiring, pay and promotions. And further, the Education Act of 1972, which
does not allow discriminations, either. If any woman is discriminated against in
employment, she can file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
and it will pay the cost of processing the claim and filing suit for back pay. Another right
women will loose will be their right to be exempted from the draft if we should have it
again. And with the volunteer’s army proving itself not very successful, in the event of
an emergency, we’d be back to the draft again. You know, it is still the law for young
men to register for the draft at 18, with ERA women would have to register at 18, also.
The Official United States House Judiciary Committee Report to Congress clearly states
not only would women, including mothers, be subject to the draft, but the military would
be compelled to place them in combat units along side of men. Another dangerous effect
of ERA would be the loss of all protective labor legislation placed on the books for
women so far. Women in industry need these laws. You see, women are just as smart as
men, but they can’t compete evenly in manual labor because most of them are not as
strong as men, and so they need those protective labor laws. Another bad feature of ERA
would be Section 2, which reads, “The Congress shall have the powers to enforce by
appropriate legislation the provisions of this Article.” This is a tremendous grab for
power at the federal level. We elect these Senators and Representatives to our state
legislatures and then deprive them of their powers to legislate for us. Originally, Section
2 read, “Congress and the various state legislature shall have power to enforce this
Article by appropriate legislation.” The words “and the various states” left out before
passage by Congress. They are now deleted. You see, it was the women libber’s who
wanted many of these crippling clauses eliminated and we have our own philosophy right
here in Montana, “Let our legislators make laws to serve our wants and needs.” Many
states emotionally ratified the ERA without study of its effects. The Nebraskan
legislature was the second state to ratify and passed it unanimously without any hearings
or debates. However, the next year, after hearings, debate and study, it rescinded.
Twenty states now have rejected ERA, 10 states are presently introducing motions to
rescind in their legislatures, and of course, Nebraska has already rescinded. A state
legislature, you see, can repeal any act it passes, the power to rescind exists only up until
the time as the necessary three-fourths of the state have ratified. It’s perfectly
constitutional. Just who wants ERA? The New York Times describes the radical
objectives of the, let’s see, the New York Times article, that’s September 1972, frankly
described the ultimate objectives of the women liberation movement in these words, to
give women full participation in society they say it is necessary to overthrow the
structures on which the system is based. The first things to go would be the political
institutions that perpetuate the system, such as institutional marriage which they assert
4
enslaves women for economic reasons. Probably the most important and the most
emotional issue that unites the reformers with the radicals is the proposed repeal of all
abortion laws. However, there is another type of woman supporting the Equal Rights
Amendment from the most sincere motives, and that’s the business and professional
women who have been discriminated against. But the laws are on the books. All we
need is to reinforce them, or rather to see that they are enforced. The Equal Rights
Amendment is not self-enforcing. If the Hayden modification had remained in it, we
would have supported it, but please, don’t take away the rights of the rest of the women.
Please write your legislators. Rosetta?
Rosetta: Okay, Mary.
Mary: Thank you.
Rosetta: Now, they have presented their sides, Ada Harlen and Mary Doubek, and I have
questions. Some of these questions are repetitious. Amazingly enough not too many
came in that were the same. I have tried to, I have kept all my mail, I want… I don’t
know why, I never get uptight like this, but I’m a little nervous about this, it seems so
formal and I don’t want it to be because “Scooter” isn’t formal, but I have kept all my
mail on this, every piece of mail. And we are going to try and be as fair and as even
Steven right down the line. And Mary and Ada and I talked a little bit before we went on
and they said they would try and limit, they want to go through as many questions as
possible, they’ll try to limit their answers and keep them as brief, because with questions
you really get the pulse of the people. We’re going to be back with the written in
questions they choose, but they will both have an opportunity to respond to the question,
and then we’ll alternate them on who will answer the next question. The first question:
How will the ERA dignify the housewife? Ada?
Ada: I think many housewives are dignified right now, for that matter, but it will
recognize for one thing the fact that women, even though they are not paid by anyone for
performing housework, those, that compensation will be recognized not only by the
Internal Revenue Service, for instance, the fact that at this time if you own joint property,
when you die, the ER, or excuse me, the Internal Revenue Service does not recognize that
a housewife actually contributed to earning that money because they say she didn’t bring
home a paycheck. Everyone knows that the services a housewife performs is certainly
worth a considerable amount of money. That has been proven in many lawsuits by the
fact that you can sue for the services of your wife and recover a considerable amount of
money and we are entitled to be recognized for that, I believe.
Rosetta: Mary, the same question, how will the ERA dignify the housewife?
Mary: Well, I feel as though the housewives in the United States have enjoyed just a
perfect dignity over the years and we are happy to call ourselves housewives and
mothers. As far as the, and I don’t think it will give a thing to us. We certainly, I think
we are, actually we are suffering to be taken down from the pedestal we’ve enjoyed over
the years and to be placed on an equal with men because the men in our society have
5
placed us above equality. But, as far as the legal rights, now of course Mrs. Harlen is an
attorney, but I understand that although we aren’t compensated in terms of dollars and
cents and we do have little stars in our crown, we also do share in the estate. After the
husband dies why we get a portion of the estate or percentage of the estate, and so we
help him amass what our estate will be worth eventually. But as far as the money that we
would get, you know that the Internal Revenue recognizes that we are worth, I can’t take
that money down and buy Christmas presents for my children.
Rosetta: Mary, will ERA affect social issues?
Mary: Well, ERA will really affect us all the way around. They say that it’s just going to
be legal, but when you think of military, criminal law, and all of the, it’s going to make
us on an equal basis with men, which means it’s going to affect our lives, certainly, in all
phases, I would say.
Rosetta: Ada, will ERA affect social issues?
Ada: No. I can’t see where it will at all. Common sense tells us that it will not affect the
social relationship between the sexes in any manner.
Rosetta: Ada, do you really feel women will loose their rights and privileges under
ERA?
Ada: Everyone keeps talking about we’re going to have our rights taken away from us.
I haven’t been able to find anybody to pin me down as to what those rights are that they
are going to take away from me with ERA. I think it will give me an equal chance, or all
men and women, an equal chance to be entitled to the rights which we should be entitled
to.
Rosetta: Mary?
Mary: Well, I feel we have equal rights right now. I am free to go out and get a job, and
I do teach. I am free to stay home. But you see, in the event of the Equal Rights
Amendment, women would no longer enjoy the right to be exempted from the draft and
they say well the volunteer army is now in effect, but as I pointed out in my presentation
if there were a national emergency they would have to resurrect the draft and then women
would have to be drafted. Also, we give up our rights to our state legislators. We elect
them and then we wouldn’t allow them to legislate for us. Do you realize that all of our
laws, our criminal laws, domestic laws and so on, would be then in the hands of the
federal government and I think we are all happy with our philosophy here in Montana.
The federal government would take over in all of our domestic laws and so on. Now if
we have a gripe we can go to our legislators and they will enact legislation to help us, and
that’s what we must do. But in ERA, may I just say one thing, because in Pennsylvania
and Colorado, women have lost their right to be supported there. In the case of Colorado
vs. Elliott, the woman tried to press charges against her husband because he wasn’t
supporting her, and so the judge said, well we have ERA in our state now and it’s too
6
bad, but this would be clearly discriminatory to the man to expect that he would support
you and so we can’t press charges. Case dismissed.
Rosetta: Mary, what will ERA do for the women who are not physically able to do the
equal work for equal pay on the same job as men?
Mary: This is really, this is really rough on women because it does nullify all protective
labor legislation that’s in effect right now. Women would be then on a par with men.
We had a letter about a woman in Great Falls in industry, she’s getting on in years, and
she was told at the first of the month she was going to receive equal pay for her work,
along equal with men, and the men have to do some heavy carrying, so she will have to
do the same kinds of heavy carrying. She said she can’t do it, she fears she will lose her
job, and in all probability she will because she won’t be able to put out the same work.
Rosetta: Ada, your feelings on this?
Ada: The employment situation as it is right now with physical labor, I’m sure that if
you do the same amount of labor as a man does you will be equally paid. Mary talks
about not affecting our employment. Take the education situation where Mary being a
teacher I would think would be concerned about this, because elementary teachers, about
68 percent are women, yet you get down to principals where, of elementary schools,
about 15 percent are women and in high schools, four percent. I believe that women are
adequately able to do the same type of work in the educational system that men are and
yet we are terrifically discriminated against in that field.
Mary: May I?
Rosetta: I think we’ll have one point to each question.
Mary: Education. She brought up education and I am a teacher and I’d like to point out.
Rosetta: If you can briefly as quickly as possible.
Mary: I just want to say that, who is discriminating against the women? I have a table
here that clearly shows that there is no discrimination in education. But it’s the statistics.
Who is applying for the jobs? Are the women in fact applying for roles of principals or
teachers because if they apply and they have the qualifications, you see it would be
against the Equal Employment Opportunity Act if they were denied a position if they had
the same ability.
Rosetta: Ada, does the ERA extend into affairs of the home?
Ada: No. I think we’ve adequately pointed that out. The only manner in which this may
extend into the home, Rosetta, I feel would be in the, through the courts perhaps with
children’s support and perhaps even alimony. However, this is at this time decided
generally on the issues at hand and each case, of course, is different and the judge has the
7
discretion of determining who should support the children. Simply because you are a
woman, I don’t feel that should give you a right to be entitled to have someone support
you. At this time in Montana the support of the children is the duty of both the man and
the woman and whoever is capable of supporting those children. Certainly if a woman is
earning $700 a month and a man is earning $700 a month, why should the full support of
the children be upon that man? I don’t think that that’s fair by any stretch of the
imagination.
Rosetta: Mary?
Mary: Yes, well I definitely think the Equal Rights Amendment will affect the home.
First, as I’ve pointed out before, the women would loose their support; and secondly,
Professor Paul Freund of the Harvard Law School, and he is a constitutional law expert,
points out the fact that if the Equal Rights Amendment were to be passed, and there were
day care centers in the area, the woman would have to put her pre-school children in the
day care centers so that she could go out and obtain a fifty percent of the support of the
home. She wouldn’t have the excuse of having pre-school children to take care of. And
this is a, he’s a constitutional lawyer. He’s the man that they would go to to find out how
the ERA would work. And so all of these laws, domestic laws, would have to be
changed. Of course, if the woman is home and she has to go to work, you can see she’s
going to have a hard time. Usually they do have the man support the wife because she’s
the one who bears the children, he begets them, she bears them, so he should pay for her
financial support.
Rosetta: Since we already have state ERA, why do we need to ratify the national ERA,
Mary?
Mary: Well I would like to point out that we in Montana are quite fortunate because our
Equal Rights Amendment differs from the national Equal Rights Amendment. In our
amendment we have the equal protection clause and we can take it to mean the language
of the 14th Amendment which will differentiate, which uses, which distinguishes
differences between men and women and all differences aren’t necessarily
discrimination, so we really do have a lot more. If you would read that section in the
Constitution and compare it to the national Equal Rights Amendment, you’d find that we
are really better enforced.
Rosetta: Ada, since we already have ERA, state ERA, why do we need to ratify the
national ERA?
Ada: Because without the national ERA, Rosetta, while under Montana’s constitution we
will be entitled to benefits from this constitution, which will help to equalize our rights
for women, that will not take care of any federal legislation and without ratifying this
amendment we won’t be able to equalize these social security laws or any of the other
federal benefits which would help us.
Rosetta: Ada, can a state rescind it’s ratification of ERA?
8
Ada: Yes, a state may rescind its ratification. However, Mary mentioned earlier that
Nebraska had now rescinded. But I might point out that while Nebraska did vote to
rescind its earlier ratification of ERA, it is still being counted as one of the 30 states
having ratified. The legality of this attempt to rescind will have to be resolved by
Congress when it decides what states have ratified the Amendment. If Congress follows
history and precedent it must hold that such a de-ratification attempt is null and void.
Rosetta: We’re going to have to hurry. We have lots of questions and time is growing
late. Mary, can a state rescind its ratification?
Mary: Yes, it certainly can. A state legislature can repeal any act it passes. There’s
nothing in the United States Constitution, any state constitution, any federal or state laws,
or any decision of the United States Supreme Court which denies this right to a state
legislature. As a matter of fact, Professor Charles Black, law professor of juris prudence,
at Yale University Law School, has said that he is a strong proponent of the Equal Rights
Amendment, but he said, it’s clearly once a state goes for it, it can change its mind either
way before the amendment is officially declared to be ratified. The ones who count, who
do not want to count Nebraska as a rescinding, are the proponents.
Rosetta: Mary, since there is no draft, how could women be drafted?
Mary: Well there is no draft, but we do have a volunteer army and it is proving that it is
unsuccessful. They are below quota, they are lowering their standards, and so in the
event of a national emergency they would have to get people in it and so they would have
to resurrect the draft. We see headlines about the draft being brought again to the fore all
the time and then of course in the event of a draft women would be drafted and this is
acknowledged in the Yale Law Journal.
Rosetta: Ada?
Ada: The draft is now a dead issue, and Congress at this time already does have the
power to draft women. In fact, at the end of WWII, this was almost brought to a
foregone conclusion by the drafting of women. One thing that the military would have to
end would be the practice of demanding higher qualification for women than for men. In
other words, did you know that at this time a woman must be a high school graduate in
order to volunteer; a man does not? There are benefits to be gained by entering the
military and the woman should be entitled to be able to join up and enjoy the same
benefits that men do.
Rosetta: If women were to sue under, and you’re an attorney, if women were to sue
under existing laws to clear up inequities, wouldn’t their legal brief have more substance
if the law of the land, the Constitution, guaranteed equality, and, there’s a, it’s a two-fold
question, maybe this other part will clear it up. Wouldn’t the social fabric of such
inequities be easier to re-weave into more pleasant patterns if the ERA were passed?
9
Ada: That question brings me a little on the confused side. If you’re submitting a brief
or suing in court, I don’t really feel that your sex should affect the contents of your brief,
it shouldn’t even affect your influence on the court itself. What is in it should be the
meat on which the court would base its decision, not who you are or what your sex is. It
should be concerned with the issue, not the person which is, not the sex of the person,
which is exactly the issue that the ERA is arguing about.
Rosetta: Mary?
Mary: Yes, I’ll just make this very quick. Women in Montana are allowed to sue in their
own name and in fact do so, so I don’t think there’s any advantage there.
Rosetta: Now let’s keep this one brief, in view of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Act of March ‘73, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Higher
Education Act of 1973, what further purpose does Equal Rights Amendment serve,
Mary?
Mary: Well, as Martha Griffith said, in the Congress, Equal Rights, the Equal Rights
Amendment will do nothing for women in the field of employment. She maintains it’s
strictly psychological uplift. I feel it will not only do nothing, it will take away our
rights.
Rosetta: Ada.
Ada: I just might comment briefly on this “equal opportunities.” Everyone says if you’re
not getting paid equally, you can simply file a claim with the equal opportunities. The
CIO/AFL representative has informed us that there is such a backlog with the equal
opportunities commission we might all be dead and buried by the time your claim might
be heard. Their claims are running over 2,000 claims on the books at this time which
have not even been considered yet.
Rosetta: Mary, I have heard that the John Birch Society has financed the STOP ERA
Campaign. Is this true?
Mary: No, this is just a smear by association. I haven’t spoken one place yet, almost, I
can think of just one, where this isn’t mentioned. I am not a member and Phyllis
Schlafly, noted author, lecturer and writer, is not a member of the John Birch Society.
They have been cleared by Congress by a representative who was, John Ruscello, was
was concerned, and he just merely pointed out that they were just a patriotic bunch. But
this is just a real smear. A lawyer, an old lawyer told a young lawyer, if you have any
trouble, if you have the law, if you’re short on law, beg your pardon, if you’re short on
law, argue the facts, if you’re short of facts, argue the law and if you’re short on both,
smear the opposition, and I’ve think that’s simply the tactic of this.
Rosetta: Ada, do you have comments on that?
10
Ada: Only that extremists of the left and right are definitely known to be sponsors, or
opponents of the ERA and those in my opinion include not only the John Birch Society,
but the Communist party and the American party as well.
Rosetta: Who supports the ERA? Ada?
Ada: It’s my question.
Rosetta: Now there are lists of them could we generalize?
Ada: The ERA is supported by various church organizations, labor organizations,
women’s organizations and certainly other organizations. Also, to get down to basics in
Montana, the support is actually coming from a lot of little individuals. The women,
housewives in town, have been out raising money with garage sales, with bake sales, with
belonging to the organization and paying a dollar’s dues, and various other ways in which
they have raised money. As I’ve said, I won’t list all of the organizations.
Rosetta: No. And Mary I’ll ask you not to list organizations but generalize.
Mary: Yes. We find that many of the organizations that the proponents’ list, have been
just simply taken at executive level. In other words, we know members in many of these
organizations who have never been polled, and in fact many of whom are against the
Equal Rights Amendment and yet their organizations are listed for it. So we feel as
though this is very unfair. Now Redbook last July told the proponents to go out and
“look like housewives” and solicit this vote, you know, for the Equal Rights Amendment.
And we feel as though we are the housewives, we are the ones who would be
discriminated against, and so we are not voting for it.
Rosetta: This I’m not sure has an answer, this question, but it comes from a concerned
high school student, and since it’s the only student who wrote a question, and both men
and women by the way did send in questions. Why did, and I will, if you want to
comment, fine and if not we’ll just go on to the next. Why didn’t Presidents Johnson,
Kennedy and Nixon support ERA? I don’t know if there’s an answer to that. The next
question, how will ERA affect labor laws that protect women, Mary?
Mary: Yes, well, some of those presidents did support the Equal Rights Amendment, but
it was only when it had the Hayden modification attached to it which would protect our
rights, benefits and exemptions. Actually, President Kennedy did not support the Equal
Rights Amendment because he felt as though the 14th Amendment, the equal protection
clause, plus the equal pay act of 1963 would take care of women in all kinds of
discriminatory situations, so he said that the Equal Rights Amendments was not
necessary.
Rosetta: Ada, how will ERA affect labor laws that protect women?
11
Ada: Labor laws were originally intended to protect women from being exploited on the
job and they are now often used to bar women from getting jobs at better pay. The Civil
Rights Act of ‘64 is invalidating these laws all over the United States. Montana has only
one law left requiring seats for female employees. Recently the law that women could
not work more than eight hours a day was ruled out in Montana and this was brought out
in a situation over in Missoula where a bakery would not allow the women to work over
time thus depriving them of making the time and a half for overtime that the men were
allowed to make.
Rosetta: Mary, as a tax payer I’d like to ask if ERA is passed and made law will this do
away with the equal opportunity program as it now exists?
Mary: Well, now which equal opportunity program are you specifying?
Rosetta: They don’t specify, it’s simply equal opportunity program. Well we…
Mary: There’s a, you mean that Equal Employment Opportunity we have?
Rosetta: Yes. I think we have an equal opportunity…
Mary: We have an Equal Employment Opportunity Act, well, you know. Well of
course, that was put in as an enforcement clause, or as an enforcing amendment to the
Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, is that what you’re referring to?
Rosetta: I guess, I don’t know.
Mary: Really they are a little bit ambiguous I think.
Rosetta: Ada, do you want to comment?
Ada: No, I don’t want to comment on that question.
Rosetta: Ada, what groups were influential in lobbying ERA out of Congress and
bringing it to the state level?
Ada: Frankly, I don’t know, Rosetta. I’m not knowledgeable enough to have read that
much to actually know.
Rosetta: Mary?
Mary: Well, the New York Times, 1972, said, and the senators themselves, and the
representatives said, that it was the women libber’s who descended upon them. They
were quite frank and outspoken and many of them were sorry but they admitted they
passed the buck to the state legislatures.
Rosetta: Mary, what federal laws would be affected by the passage of the ERA?
12
Mary: Well, the first one that I immediately can see is the one that would draft women.
Now, we know that Congress has always had the power to draft women, but it has used
that privilege to exempt women. So if the draft were reinstated and the national draft act
or whatever the official name is, why women would be drafted. And also all of the, the
federal government would have legislative powers over all women and the homes and so
on, because, remember that clause about the state legislator, legislature having
jurisdictions over the powers to enforce were taken away from our state legislators. So
our poor state legislators have been elected, they’re standing there, they want to do what
we want them to do, but then we pass the national ERA and deprive them of these
powers.
Rosetta: Ada, what federal laws would be affected by the passage of the ERA?
Ada: Those that discriminate against equality of the sexes at this time. I think in
particular of Social Security benefits at a level that we might become concerned about.
For instance, if a woman retires, she having worked in a job in which she paid social
security all of her life, her benefits are not equal to that of a man. Men cannot retire at as
low an age as women can. I think they’re entitled to this right. Also, if a woman is killed
outright and has social security benefits coming, her husband and her children should be
entitled to the same benefits that the man would be, and that the woman and the man
themselves would be entitled to, whichever might have died first should be entitled to the
same benefits for their remaining children or their remaining spouse.
Rosetta: I think I will further go on with another question that came in, how would ERA
affect social security?
Mary: Men and women will now be the same. Women have been able to retire earlier.
But now men can retire of course at 62 but they take less of a rate. But over a three year
period of time, which will be completed by 1975, it’s equalized, the men and the women
will get the same advantages and they’ll be even Steven.
Rosetta: Mary, if ERA is passed would we have to use the same bathrooms?
Mary: Now, the right to privacy is covered in the Yale Law Journal, and I’ll just have
two things to say. First, it’s impossible to spell out in advance the precise boundaries the
courts will eventually fix in accommodating the ERA and the right of privacy. Now
that’s in the Yale Journal and that’s how the proponents say that it will turn out. I also
want to point out that the Federal Register has put out a sheet that actually says, in the
event of the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, there would be co-facilities in one
of public bathrooms and that even, they have even said right in their federal register that
the partitions would be taken down to make, to facilitate easier cleaning of the restrooms.
And also Professor Paul Freund has said that bathrooms in public facilities and
bathrooms would be co-educational. There is no right to privacy at San Quentin prison
where a woman guard ushers the men in and out of the showers and the men are saying,
where’s my right to privacy.
13
Ada: The right to privacy is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Supreme Court
decision of Griswold vs. Connecticut and would guarantee segregated public bathrooms,
etc. This argument can sometimes be absurd. After all, in homes, small offices and
aboard airplanes, both sexes use the same bathroom with dignity and privacy. I don’t feel
that it will affect us in any way.
Rosetta: Why does labor support the ERA when at first they opposed it, Ada?
Ada: Labor did support, at first did oppose the ERA, then they realized that the labor
laws were becoming so obsolete that they had to be changed to conform to the 14th
Amendment, although, even in conforming it was up to the person making the complaint
to instigate the action in order to bring them under the full realm of the labor protection.
The labor laws are now being advocated by the CIO and AFL and they are one of the
sponsors of the ERA.
Producer: There’s only about a minute and a half left, Rosetta.
Rosetta: Very quickly.
Mary: Yes. The AFL/CIO changed their decision on an executive level. They originally
had said they were so opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment because of its
potentionally dangerous impact on state labor legislation for women workers.
Experience today shows that equality has been used to remove labor law protective for
women rather than to extend it to adapt to men. It was handled on an executive level.
Rosetta: Quickly, Mary, and in one word or less, do you think men are less masculine
today?
Mary: (Laughter) No, I guess they’re better than ever. My husband is.
Ada: Definitely not.
(Laughter.)
Rosetta: I’m sorry, we have questions here.
Mary: That’s a cutie.
Rosetta: Well, we got through this and I compliment both of you for sticking to the rules.
And I’m sorry we didn’t have time for calls. Perhaps another time, during the legislature
we will have a similar session like this so that our legislators can be informed. Now how,
I know both of you want, how they feel. They want these things written, to the
legislators, to the senators, to the members of the House of Representatives. This is the
only way you get action, really, and I know from talking with legislators one letter is
14
worth a whole lot. So where do they obtain lists of the senators and the members of the
house?
Mary: Well, the Secretary of State’s office does have the addresses and names.
Rosetta: The Secretary of State. Ada?
Ada: Yes, and if you would write anyone at Post Office Box 297, we would be happy to
furnish you with these lists. At any time.
Rosetta: Alright. Pro or con, that’s the thing to do if you want action.
Mary: That address wasn’t a con, though, you know, that was their Ratification address.
Rosetta: Well, okay. The Secretary of State, all right, okay. The Secretary of State then.
Tomorrow on Scooter we’re going to have Tom Carlin who talks about ManPower. And
it’s kind of a diversity from what we had this morning. Tom Carlin who’s a counselor
and a program director for the ManPower program here in Helena. Dick Shackelford will
be down to talk about the Christmas concert which is coming up on Saturday night. And,
thank you again for both coming down. And now think about this all you gals and guys
and I do hope the fellas listened this morning because this affects us all. We’ll see you
tomorrow.
(End)